Will Carrow Road attendances fall now ruling on Sky/Satellite sport airing confirmed?

[Ankles 0]

Ruling upheld so "foreign" systems can be used by pubs to show football (as well as golf, cricket, rugby etc)

Link:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-15162241

Given how busy the pubs that have these system have been on match days, home & away, i wonder if you might see a fall in attendances

Usually when season tickets holders cannot go and use the buy back system the spare/floating tickets returned are snapped up very quickly. With casual fan prices where they are the thought of £5 spent in a pub could well appeal

It may also temper the clubs future ticketing price policy

[MC Fearfull 0]

Not a high chance, its very unlikely, its premiership football I cant see people wanting to miss that although, maybe long distance away games might be affected, like Blackburn, Newcastle/Sunderland places like that in terms of travelling fans

[Theres only one Ken Foggo 0]

Watching on TV in a pub does not remotely compare with being at the game. And as someone said, pubs have been showing matches on Saturday afternoons for a decade now with no significant effect on attendances. However if we continue to see ever more ridiculous and unrealistic increases in ticket prices that might start to change.

[ur just a man in a jacket 0]

Is the opening post mad? The attendance will NEVER drop dramatically, any fans such as myself will go week in week out and i hate watching us on tv as it is never the same.

[Rolf Harris 31]

when the European union collapse then this will no longer apply, I guess soon then :L

[Lord Horn 0]

[quote user="ur just a man in a jacket"]Is the opening post mad? The attendance will NEVER drop dramatically, any fans such as myself will go week in week out and i hate watching us on tv as it is never the same.[/quote]

Couldn''t agree more - the major benefit this has is that I will be able to see City away games that because of personal and financial circumstances I wouldn''t normally get to see.  I''m sure those that can afford away travel will not stop going and our supporters that live close to away matches wont go and watch in the pub when they can see us live.  Good for pubs in rural areas in particular - the one I saw the Chelsea and United games in was heaving.

[Bill 1,788]

I think there is some misunderstanding here

The ruling has -

"The court said while she was entitled to use the decoder she would not be allowed to show matches at cheaper rates than BSkyB charges commercial premises in the UK on copyright grounds.

Such a transmission should be regarded as a “communication to the public” and therefore the claimant would need the permission of the FA Premier League otherwise she was in beach of copyright."

My understanding is that the dispute arose not because the pub in question was showing live Saturday football, but that it was using a cheaper source outside of the ''pubs region; - as laid down and enforced by the Premier League.

So whilst the ruling allows pubs to use sources from outside their area it will still mean they have to pay the high cost, as before.

If pubs were not willing to pay the original high costs it will interesting to see if they will after this ruling - or perhaps take the risk and use a cheaper supplier.

As far as ''non brodcasting'' goes it does mean that fans can use a cheaper sorce for games in their own homes.

[nutty nigel 7,509]

Now I don''t care whether the pubs can show the games or not. It makes little difference to me. But in the long run it will make a huge difference to the Premier League. If Sky TV no longer have exclusive rights to show their games then they won''t pay anything like the amount they are paying now for broadcasting rights. The knock on effect will be a huge reduction in football clubs income. Which will mean clubs have to rely more on income from gate receipts. Which will then make a reduction on players wages. Which will mean a reduction in the quality of players. Which will make football less attractive to many of the ''new age fans''. which will reduce attendances. Which will further reduce wages and the quality of players. Eventually leaving us with the game we left behind in the early 90s.

 

Is that a good thing or not?

 

 

[K Lo 221]

There must be a load of spectators in waiting just wanting there to be available tickets on a matchday! Even if every CR match were shown free on BBC/ITV on Saturday I''d still try and make the trip to get there over and above wathcing it on TV.OTBC !!

[crabbycanary 2]

Nutty - I am not convinced that a reduction in wages will lead to a reduction in quality, as those footballers that won''t want to play for something like  a common mans wage, can sod off as far as I am concerned, they''ve had it far too good for far too long. Once the huffy ego''s have gone, this willl lead to more hungry (English?) players wanting to step in (cos there are plenty about) and before you know it, England will be winning the World Cup! Simples!

[Bill 1,788]

"Which will further reduce wages and the quality of players. "

Not a correct assumption.

A player does not become better the more you pay him.

The real moot point is how many attending games now are there for the football and how many are there because of the hype and a sense of ''occassion'' ?

[PurpleCanary 5,554]

[quote user="nutty nigel"]

Now I don''t care whether the pubs can show the games or not. It makes little difference to me. But in the long run it will make a huge difference to the Premier League. If Sky TV no longer have exclusive rights to show their games then they won''t pay anything like the amount they are paying now for broadcasting rights. The knock on effect will be a huge reduction in football clubs income. Which will mean clubs have to rely more on income from gate receipts. Which will then make a reduction on players wages. Which will mean a reduction in the quality of players. Which will make football less attractive to many of the ''new age fans''. which will reduce attendances. Which will further reduce wages and the quality of players. Eventually leaving us with the game we left behind in the early 90s.

 

Is that a good thing or not?

 

 

[/quote]

 

This is one of those rulings that needs to be pored over to work out what the implications. At first glance, though, the "pub" bit of the ruling (which anyway seems in effect to have gone aginst the pub) isn''t terribly significant. Not financially at least, for Sky.

 

The significant bit looks like being the court saying you can''t sell rights on a country by country basis. That is where the real money is for Sky, in those individual contracts. If they had to sell rights on a pan-European basis, that might seriously damage the business model. An educated guess would be that Sky''s lawyers are already working on how to reduce the effects of this ruling or get round it altogether.

 

[paul moy 235]

[quote user="City1st"]"Which will further reduce wages and the quality of players. " Not a correct assumption. A player does not become better the more you pay him. The real moot point is how many attending games now are there for the football and how many are there because of the hype and a sense of ''occassion'' ?[/quote]

Agreed, and the fact that wages are overall lower will mean that smaller clubs can compete on a more equal basis. Financial Fair Play is yet another tool to this end. This will be good for the game, for competition, and for Norwich City in particular.

[smooth 114]

I don''t think at carrow road the attendance would be significantly reduced, however attendances at other clubs we have seen have shown a drop but that is due to the cost for a fan to go and the changes of football which has meant that fans look elsewhere for sporting events and are happy being a casual fan.

I am one of the latter, the cost has now re-inforced that. But I am a huge fan of this law and wish if only we could have european pricing on so many other things here in the UK and stop playing inflated prices just because we live across a small stretch of water. Or get European regs on housing sizes which will mean we no longer have the smallest houses in europe per foot.

So a great win and one that will go through the courts for longer, from what I saw at 9am as long as those channels do not have any associated prem. music etc then you are good to go. There was nothing highlighted about the actual game.

I think in a time of recession this is helping out pubs, brewers, the football fan and hence a community.

a great call by the European court. In regard to players moving on due to wages are we not already seeing that, russia and the arab nations now have wealthy owners and players moving there. The US has finances, a new spanish and french club are owned by weatlhy owners. Players will move for money but also others will do it becasue they want to do it for achievement.

There will be a club that will be left by a rich owner and I hope that club then fails, the game needs to be reined in.

I for one am a football fan and go through every emotion during a game. I may not always be there but I read NCFC, I listen NCFC and watch anything NCFC. I will never miss a game even when I have worked overseas. But I think this ruling is great for real fans, instead of strangling our available funds this means we can support our club and see every game.

Also it could mean an end to murdochs rule, this country has always been expensive and this is one rule that can bring us on par with european pricing and not at such a high rate.

[norfolkbroadslim 223]

Does this have any implications for the stupid ruling that live text updates aren''t allowed during a game and more to the point, which will render the former obsolete, the ban on live radio broadcasts across the internet?

 

 

 

[norfolkbroadslim 223]

[quote user="norfolkbroadslim"]

Does this have any implications for the stupid ruling that live text updates aren''t allowed during a game and more to the point, which will render the former obsolete, the ban on live radio broadcasts across the internet?

 

 

 

[/quote]

 

* Live radio MATCH broadcasts / commentaries......

[nutty nigel 7,509]

[quote user="crabbycanary"]

Nutty - I am not convinced that a reduction in wages will lead to a reduction in quality, as those footballers that won''t want to play for something like  a common mans wage, can sod off as far as I am concerned, they''ve had it far too good for far too long. Once the huffy ego''s have gone, this willl lead to more hungry (English?) players wanting to step in (cos there are plenty about) and before you know it, England will be winning the World Cup! Simples!

[/quote]

Pretty much agree with your sentiments Crabby. But back in the eighties before the Sky money came flooding in things were very different. I remember in 1989 we finished fourth with probably the best overall team I saw in our colours. Arsenal won the league and beat us 5-0 at the end of that season. Their team that day was Lukic, Dixon, Winterburn, Thomas, Bould, Adams, Roecastle, Thomas, Smith, Merson, Marwood. And the Highbury attendance was 28,449. I don''t think it can be argued that since the tv millions have come that the quality has improved greatly. Attendances have improved to match that.

 

Were the hungry British players better then than they are now? I''d say not.

 

[William Darby 0]

Sky will win in the long run.  Digressing for a sec, you know that little drink sign in the corner of a pub''s screen.  Not everybody knows is, that indicates the pub is properly licensed.If Sky puts something similar like a Prem League logo, acting as a watermark on its video feeds across the world. When it diverted and all that Jazz and pinged back via foreign decoders to the pubs.  Sky will then shut them down by playing the copyright card.More interesting, live commentary over the radio and internet could take an interesting twist.

[crabbycanary 2]

[quote user="nutty nigel"][quote user="crabbycanary"]

Nutty - I am not convinced that a reduction in wages will lead to a reduction in quality, as those footballers that won''t want to play for something like  a common mans wage, can sod off as far as I am concerned, they''ve had it far too good for far too long. Once the huffy ego''s have gone, this willl lead to more hungry (English?) players wanting to step in (cos there are plenty about) and before you know it, England will be winning the World Cup! Simples!

[/quote]

Pretty much agree with your sentiments Crabby. But back in the eighties before the Sky money came flooding in things were very different. I remember in 1989 we finished fourth with probably the best overall team I saw in our colours. Arsenal won the league and beat us 5-0 at the end of that season. Their team that day was Lukic, Dixon, Winterburn, Thomas, Bould, Adams, Roecastle, Thomas, Smith, Merson, Marwood. And the Highbury attendance was 28,449. I don''t think it can be argued that since the tv millions have come that the quality has improved greatly. Attendances have improved to match that.

 

Were the hungry British players better then than they are now? I''d say not.

 

[/quote]

 

I see what you are saying Nutty, it was just my thought that the younger English players would get a better chance of playing top flight football, because I would wager a lot of the top flight (foreign) players would not be *rsed to play in our League if the money drys up. I can appreciate that there would be one or two English players who wouldn''t fancy taking a massive reduction in wages also, but as a general stereotype, ''Johnny Foreigner'' is the one likely to get a huff on and leave.

As an aside,  do you think being a football fan these days (as in Premier League team''s fans|), can be construed as jumping on the bandwagon  just to be part of what they see as something ''successful''. What I am trying to say is reference the plastic Mancs that have hit this messageboard this week, against the like of the fans supporting the 1989 (Pre Sky) side, are they a different ''breed''? Because the likes of you and me have supported our teams pre-TV money, are we just nostalgic old gits, and do we appreciate football for what is was originally intended, as a community pasttime? thing? 

[nutty nigel 7,509]

Well I''m definitely and old git Crabbie but I believe there are more fans going to games now because of the improvements made on and off the pitch since the tv money came flooding in. Whether they''d hang around if the gravy train went elsewhere is open to debate. I think we''d still get decent crowds but it would be the corporate income that would suffer because the league would have a lower profile without some of the best players in the world playing here.

 

 

[BW 0]

I think its great news. Will encourage more local fans who currently rather sit in a pub on a saturday and watch united/chelsea etc to watch their local team. We will get more fans this way in my eyes. Will also keep pubs running in business after a time of uncertainty.

[CaptnCanary 0]

[quote user="City1st"]I think there is some misunderstanding here The ruling has - "The court said while she was entitled to use the decoder she would not be allowed to show matches at cheaper rates than BSkyB charges commercial premises in the UK on copyright grounds. Such a transmission should be regarded as a “communication to the public” and therefore the claimant would need the permission of the FA Premier League otherwise she was in beach of copyright." My understanding is that the dispute arose not because the pub in question was showing live Saturday football, but that it was using a cheaper source outside of the ''pubs region; - as laid down and enforced by the Premier League. So whilst the ruling allows pubs to use sources from outside their area it will still mean they have to pay the high cost, as before. If pubs were not willing to pay the original high costs it will interesting to see if they will after this ruling - or perhaps take the risk and use a cheaper supplier. As far as ''non brodcasting'' goes it does mean that fans can use a cheaper sorce for games in their own homes.[/quote]

I don''t think this gives the full story and I think it still remains for the British High Court to make a ruling based upon the ECJ guidance just given. It sounds to me like its OK for pubs to use foreign suppliers. I don''t see anything about minimum prices so I''m not sure where you have read that. Also, Sky do not even offer the service that allows all games to be broadcast live so how can you compare the price?

It seems to me that the big issue comes in with copyright if the foreign provider broadcasts any copyrighted music or logos. Sky may well sell their feeds in future with an imbedded logo. If the Sky contract requires that the footage is broadcast without modification (if that is allowed by the law) it would then indirectly make it illegal for foreign providers to broadcast in the UK as it would put them in breach of copyright. I am sure Sky will come up with a way around this ruling. With no more season tickets available, I''m just going to enjoy the live broadcasts while I can.

[Syteanric 1]

 im glad the courts stood up to sky and ruled in favour of the local boozer....about time "uncle Rupert" learnt he doesnt control the world!

[Bill 1,788]

"because I would wager a lot of the top flight (foreign) players would not be *rsed to play in our League if the money drys up."

Or more likely their ''services'' would not be needed.

Payments for both wages and signing on fees to overseas players will often pass through a myriad of agents and consultancies.

It is not unlikely that some of that money will find it''s way back to dear old blighty ........

.......... and into the pockets or offshore accounts of various interested managers, club owners and ''hinvestors'', know wot I mean ''arry ?

Unfortunately as the European TV rights are dwarfed by what the Premier League gets from world wide TV rights I fear this money making monster will continue to grow. Too many snouts in an ever growing trough I''m afraid.

[curly_whirly_tipz 0]

I think it will affect some fans who struggle financially to pay to see the games. However I doubt it will have a large impact on a whole.

[Herman 9,717]

[quote user="Gene Tierney"]Sky will win in the long run.  Digressing for a sec, you know that little drink sign in the corner of a pub''s screen.  Not everybody knows is, that indicates the pub is properly licensed.
If Sky puts something similar like a Prem League logo, acting as a watermark on its video feeds across the world. When it diverted and all that Jazz and pinged back via foreign decoders to the pubs.  Sky will then shut them down by playing the copyright card.

More interesting, live commentary over the radio and internet could take an interesting twist.
[/quote]

I think you may be right.

Somehow i get the feeling that this may not be the good news that people think it is.The PL and Sky have too much at stake and will think up a way around this.

Although it looks likely to be a free-for-all down your local until it is sorted,so fill your boots in the coming months.

[Mello Yello 2,281]

I''m lovin'' the "NCFC away games watchin'' in the pub matchday experience".....I''ve saved myself a fair few bob and don''t have to worry about a train with only two carriages turning up at a platform with a couple of thousand folk all wanting to climb aboard. I can have a fair few ales with my mates and feast on a bowl of chips and gravy....and maybe a low-calorie pie on the side.

 

I can also decide after the full-time whistle whether to stay in the boozer, go home.....or venture into the city.....to socialise with others. 

 

I''ll save the live game experience when I go to Carra with my season-ticket....

 

Last season (and the one before it in the 1st division) I spent a shed-load of disposable income on travelling to an abundance of away games on transport, food and bevvy....It was immense fun, but started to encroach into my non-disposable income.....So, I''m just recuperating and replenishing my disposable income coffers......and will continue to utilise the marvellous opportunity of being able to watch NCFC playing away, live, in a local Norwich boozer with all the trimmings.....That is, until some gout ridden, lard-ar$e pontificating gits decide it is actually illegal to to so.....

 

When times are hard.....you make do.....and I don''t give a fug what anyone else thinks.....   

[TIL 1010 4,722]

[quote user="nutty nigel"]

Now I don''t care whether the pubs can show the games or not. It makes little difference to me. But in the long run it will make a huge difference to the Premier League. If Sky TV no longer have exclusive rights to show their games then they won''t pay anything like the amount they are paying now for broadcasting rights. The knock on effect will be a huge reduction in football clubs income. Which will mean clubs have to rely more on income from gate receipts. Which will then make a reduction on players wages. Which will mean a reduction in the quality of players. Which will make football less attractive to many of the ''new age fans''. which will reduce attendances. Which will further reduce wages and the quality of players. Eventually leaving us with the game we left behind in the early 90s.

 

Is that a good thing or not?

 

 

[/quote]

Well Nutty it would mean Robert Chase would still be in charge if we returned to the early 90s.Now come on be serious whoever would want that to happen?[;)]

[Bill 1,788]

"im glad the courts stood up to sky"

eh ?

It was the Premier League fighting the case, NOT sky

[im spartacus canary 0]

£33 to crane your neck around a floodlight pylon? or a tenner for 2 or 3 pints in a nice warm local ? if i can''t get a decent casual ticket it will be the pub for me and i don''t give a t0ss if people think its disloyal [:D]